A Large‐scale, Rapid Public Health Response to Rabies in an Organ Recipient and the Previously Undiagnosed Organ Donor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes and contrasts the public health response to two human rabies cases: one organ recipient diagnosed within days of symptom onset and the transplant donor who was diagnosed 18 months post-symptom onset. In response to an organ-transplant-related rabies case diagnosed in 2013, organ donor and recipient investigations were conducted by multiple public health agencies. Persons with potential exposure to infectious patient materials were assessed for rabies virus exposure. An exposure investigation was conducted to determine the source of the organ donor's infection. Over 100 persons from more than 20 agencies spent over 2700 h conducting contact investigations in healthcare, military and community settings. The 564 persons assessed include 417 healthcare workers [5.8% recommended for post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP)], 96 community contacts (15.6% recommended for PEP), 30 autopsy personnel (50% recommended for PEP), and 21 other persons (4.8% recommended for PEP). Donor contacts represented 188 assessed with 20.2% recommended for PEP, compared with 5.6% of 306 recipient contacts recommended for PEP. Human rabies cases result in substantial use of public health and medical resources, especially when diagnosis is delayed. Although rare, clinicians should consider rabies in cases of encephalitis of unexplained aetiology, particularly for cases that may result in organ donation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".